Cargando…

Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) resumes within 90 s in 27% of patients after sinus rhythm (SR) restoration. The aim of this study is to compare conduction heterogeneity during the supervulnerable period immediately after electrical cardioversion (ECV) with long-term SR in patients with AF. Epicardial mappi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heida, Annejet, van der Does, Willemijn F. B., van Schie, Mathijs S., van Staveren, Lianne N., Taverne, Yannick J. H. J., Bogers, Ad J. J. C., de Groot, Natasja M. S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9988743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36223000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-022-02679-w
_version_ 1784901631385534464
author Heida, Annejet
van der Does, Willemijn F. B.
van Schie, Mathijs S.
van Staveren, Lianne N.
Taverne, Yannick J. H. J.
Bogers, Ad J. J. C.
de Groot, Natasja M. S.
author_facet Heida, Annejet
van der Does, Willemijn F. B.
van Schie, Mathijs S.
van Staveren, Lianne N.
Taverne, Yannick J. H. J.
Bogers, Ad J. J. C.
de Groot, Natasja M. S.
author_sort Heida, Annejet
collection PubMed
description Atrial fibrillation (AF) resumes within 90 s in 27% of patients after sinus rhythm (SR) restoration. The aim of this study is to compare conduction heterogeneity during the supervulnerable period immediately after electrical cardioversion (ECV) with long-term SR in patients with AF. Epicardial mapping of both atria was performed during SR and premature atrial extrasystoles in patients in the ECV (N = 17, age: 73 ± 7 years) and control group (N = 17, age: 71 ± 6 years). Inter-electrode conduction times were used to identify areas of conduction delay (CD) (conduction times 7–11 ms) and conduction block (CB) (conduction times ≥ 12 ms). For all atrial regions, prevalences and length of longest CB and continuous CDCB lines, magnitude of conduction disorders, conduction velocity, biatrial activation time, and voltages did not differ between the ECV and control group during both SR and premature atrial extrasystoles (p ≥ 0.05). Hence, our data suggest that there may be no difference in biatrial conduction characteristics between the supervulnerable period after ECV and long-term SR in AF patients. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: The supervulnerable period after AF termination is not determined by conduction heterogeneity during SR and PACs. It is unknown to what extent intra-atrial conduction is impaired during the supervulnerable period immediately after ECV and whether different right and left atrial regions are equally affected. This high-resolution epicardial mapping study (upper left panel) of both atria shows that during SR the prevalences and length of longest CB and cCDCB lines (upper middle panel), magnitude of conduction disorders, CV and TAT (lower left panel), and voltages did not differ between the ECV and control group. Likewise, these parameters were comparable during PACs between the ECV and control group (lower left panel). †Non-normally distributed. cm/s = centimeters per second; mm = millimeter; ms = millisecond; AF = atrial fibrillation; AT = activation time; BB = Bachmann’s bundle; cCDCB = continuous lines of conduction delay and block; CB = conduction block; CD = conduction delay; CT = conduction time; CV = conduction velocity; ECV = electrical cardioversion; LA = left atrium; LAT = local activation times; PAC = premature atrial complexes; PVA = pulmonary vein area; RA = right atrium; SR = sinus rhythm; TAT = total activation time. [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11517-022-02679-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9988743
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99887432023-03-08 Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation? Heida, Annejet van der Does, Willemijn F. B. van Schie, Mathijs S. van Staveren, Lianne N. Taverne, Yannick J. H. J. Bogers, Ad J. J. C. de Groot, Natasja M. S. Med Biol Eng Comput Original Article Atrial fibrillation (AF) resumes within 90 s in 27% of patients after sinus rhythm (SR) restoration. The aim of this study is to compare conduction heterogeneity during the supervulnerable period immediately after electrical cardioversion (ECV) with long-term SR in patients with AF. Epicardial mapping of both atria was performed during SR and premature atrial extrasystoles in patients in the ECV (N = 17, age: 73 ± 7 years) and control group (N = 17, age: 71 ± 6 years). Inter-electrode conduction times were used to identify areas of conduction delay (CD) (conduction times 7–11 ms) and conduction block (CB) (conduction times ≥ 12 ms). For all atrial regions, prevalences and length of longest CB and continuous CDCB lines, magnitude of conduction disorders, conduction velocity, biatrial activation time, and voltages did not differ between the ECV and control group during both SR and premature atrial extrasystoles (p ≥ 0.05). Hence, our data suggest that there may be no difference in biatrial conduction characteristics between the supervulnerable period after ECV and long-term SR in AF patients. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT: The supervulnerable period after AF termination is not determined by conduction heterogeneity during SR and PACs. It is unknown to what extent intra-atrial conduction is impaired during the supervulnerable period immediately after ECV and whether different right and left atrial regions are equally affected. This high-resolution epicardial mapping study (upper left panel) of both atria shows that during SR the prevalences and length of longest CB and cCDCB lines (upper middle panel), magnitude of conduction disorders, CV and TAT (lower left panel), and voltages did not differ between the ECV and control group. Likewise, these parameters were comparable during PACs between the ECV and control group (lower left panel). †Non-normally distributed. cm/s = centimeters per second; mm = millimeter; ms = millisecond; AF = atrial fibrillation; AT = activation time; BB = Bachmann’s bundle; cCDCB = continuous lines of conduction delay and block; CB = conduction block; CD = conduction delay; CT = conduction time; CV = conduction velocity; ECV = electrical cardioversion; LA = left atrium; LAT = local activation times; PAC = premature atrial complexes; PVA = pulmonary vein area; RA = right atrium; SR = sinus rhythm; TAT = total activation time. [Image: see text] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11517-022-02679-w. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-10-12 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9988743/ /pubmed/36223000 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-022-02679-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Heida, Annejet
van der Does, Willemijn F. B.
van Schie, Mathijs S.
van Staveren, Lianne N.
Taverne, Yannick J. H. J.
Bogers, Ad J. J. C.
de Groot, Natasja M. S.
Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
title Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
title_full Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
title_fullStr Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
title_full_unstemmed Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
title_short Does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
title_sort does conduction heterogeneity determine the supervulnerable period after atrial fibrillation?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9988743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36223000
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11517-022-02679-w
work_keys_str_mv AT heidaannejet doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation
AT vanderdoeswillemijnfb doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation
AT vanschiemathijss doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation
AT vanstaverenliannen doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation
AT taverneyannickjhj doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation
AT bogersadjjc doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation
AT degrootnatasjams doesconductionheterogeneitydeterminethesupervulnerableperiodafteratrialfibrillation